Politics

[fourfive8]

I have been to Canada at least a dozen times - probably closer to two dozen - and never had a bad experience. Canadian aviation security personnel and immigration agents have always been extremely competent and polite - something not always found at the end of a typical TSA or US customs que.

Well, I’m happy for you. My experience in 2017 was the opposite. Family (my wife and two kids) and I were split up and detained for no reason by Canada border agents in Vancouver Intl Airport. It was a simple airport transit during an international flight, changing planes on way to US. Nothing to do with hunting or fishing or even tourism. The US CBP agents in the US Port of Entry office there were very professional and helpful. We were finally released to US CBP after over 4 hours of detention and questioning by the Canuck prick agents with attitudes. The experience terrified my family and cost us a bunch of money for transportation, hotels and extra air tickets to reach our destination in the US.

So keep on gas lighting by anecdote or “informed opinion” as you like to say. My best guess is I’ve crossed Canada about 56 times that will increase to 58 in August. Each time at 35k ft to and from AK. After my “informed real experience” in 2017, you couldn’t pay me enough to set foot in Canada again.

 

[LivingTheDream]

Well, I’m happy for you. My experience in 2017 was the opposite. Family (my wife and two kids) and I were split up and detained for no reason by Canada border agents in Vancouver Intl Airport. It was a simple airport transit during an international flight, changing planes on way to US. Nothing to do with hunting or fishing or even tourism. The US CBP agents in the US Port of Entry office there were very professional and helpful. We were finally released to US CBP after over 4 hours of detention and questioning by the Canuck prick agents with attitudes. The experience terrified my family and cost us a bunch of money for transportation, hotels and extra air tickets to reach our destination in the US.

So keep on gas lighting by anecdote or “informed opinion” as you like to say. My best guess is I’ve crossed Canada about 56 times that will increase to 58 in August. Each time at 35k ft to and from AK. After my “informed real experience” in 2017, you couldn’t pay me enough to set foot in Canada again.

That sounds insane, they didn't give any reason what so ever? I would be super pissed.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

If you think Canadians would rise up against the US taking Canada as a 51st state.

How do you think conservatives would react?

Trump would gain more favorability if he talked about giving the entire west coast and northern east coast to Canada.

We don’t need another liberal state. Trump doesn’t even realize he would loss the house and Senate immediately with Canadian liberal house members being elected. As usual Trumps mouth outruns his brain on this topic.

Most likely it would be worse than that, you’d likely see a Canadian third party in your political landscape that actually held a large amount of power based on the fact they could sway voting for either party. Canada doesn’t run a two party system we’ve already seen this happen here with the ndp propping up the liberals.

 

[PARA45]

Go on YouTube and watch a couple of the liberal attack ads they’ve been carfully edited to portray poilievre is such a way as to sound just like trump and quite skillfully done I might add. While at the same time liberals have run a very successful campaign building on carneys involvement in international business and banking and advertising him as the best one to negotiate anything with trump.

Add to that the poilievre has a fairly aggressive style of debating and routinely goes at reporters when the ask him leading questions. Also they pretty much dropped the ball on shifting quickly to dealing with trade issues and trump.

Now ask yourself what an uniformed voter who’s only interested in this election because of what he/she views as a threat south of the boarder is going to do, vote for a leader that everything they have seen makes him look just like trump ( about every third add on tv) or a quiet mild mannered appearing older man with a history of international finance and banking?

poilievre also wants to defund the cbc so he has had little help from the news cycles in Canada.

Here is a prime example

No offense, but maybe what Poilievre needs is a better team of advisors, or campaign manager.

 

[Red Leg]

Well, I’m happy for you. My experience in 2017 was the opposite. Family (my wife and two kids) and I were split up and detained for no reason by Canada border agents in Vancouver Intl Airport. It was a simple airport transit during an international flight, changing planes on way to US. Nothing to do with hunting or fishing or even tourism. The US CBP agents in the US Port of Entry office there were very professional and helpful. We were finally released to US CBP after over 4 hours of detention and questioning by the Canuck prick agents with attitudes. The experience terrified my family and cost us a bunch of money for transportation, hotels and extra air tickets to reach our destination in the US.

So keep on gas lighting by anecdote or “informed opinion” as you like to say. My best guess is I’ve crossed Canada about 56 times that will increase to 58 in August. Each time at 35k ft to and from AK. After my “informed real experience” in 2017, you couldn’t pay me enough to set foot in Canada again.

I genuinely regret you and your family, or anyone's family, had such an experience - in Canada or anywhere else. I merely pointed out my own experiences over twenty-five years. Those are simple facts, not gaslighting (you really ought to look up that term since you like to use it a lot.) And yes, I am indeed "informed" about my trips to and from Canada. Apparently, those experiences upset you because you feel it contradicts your narrative in some way?

I am taking you at your word, you had one bad experience. I would be interested to know how many other transits lower than 35K feet there were. However, I will absolutely accept your experience as fact, and assume you are not deliberately gaslighting me or anyone else. Though, by your definition, your experience would seem to be a better "gaslighting by anecdote" example, whatever that is, than mine.

 

[spike.t]

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

Most likely it would be worse than that, you’d likely see a Canadian third party in your political landscape that actually held a large amount of power based on the fact they could sway voting for either party. Canada doesn’t run a two party system we’ve already seen this happen here with the ndp propping up the liberals.

It probably wouldn’t matter. In this hypothetical situation of Canada being a 51st state, it would still only have two senators and maybe as many representatives/electors as california. The impact of a third party would be so small that most Canadians would quickly choose one of the two major parties so their vote had an impact.

That’s the system in the US and it wouldn’t change with the addition of another state. The balance would shift a little one way or the other but third parties are a non starter. I don’t know of any that have ever effectively impacted American politics to their advantage as they only split the ticket of their end of the political spectrum and water down the closest party’s vote (think Roosevelt’s bull-moose party or Ralph nader’s Green Party candidacy).

Plus Canada couldn’t even become a state immediately. The US could conceivably annex the territory but the constitution is very clear on the process. The people of the territory have to ask for statehood. That’s why Puerto Rico is still a territory as the people there continue to vote the maintain the status quo rather than statehood or independence. Hawaii was annexed in 1898 and didn’t achieve statehood until 1959. I doubt millions of angry, freshly annexed, Canadians would be clamoring for immediate statehood.

All of this is moot, however, as Americans have no interest in invading Canada. Trump has riled Canada up, to what purpose I can’t say, perhaps to no purpose, but that’s all it will amount to long term. In four years, Trump will be out of office and Canada will still not be a US state.

 

[rigbymauser]

"You will never convince me . . ."

Finally, we get the bottom line. There's no point in having a discussion or debate with people who will never be convinced. Facts won't matter, and evidence won't matter. It's like trying to convince a flat earthed that the earth is round.

I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong in this debate, but I am saying there's no point to the debate at all if people don't care what the other side has to say.

One may not be convinced but atleast before calling posters for all kinds of names do your own research or ask. But again some don’t want move regardless of clearity. Its easy to tell by the reply who possesses good social and intelligent skills and those are just proud with a strong opinion.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

It probably wouldn’t matter. In this hypothetical situation of Canada being a 51st state, it would still only have two senators and maybe as many representatives/electors as california. The impact of a third party would be so small that most Canadians would quickly choose one of the two major parties so their vote had an impact.

That’s the system in the US and it wouldn’t change with the addition of another state. The balance would shift a little one way or the other but third parties are a non starter. I don’t know of any that have ever effectively impacted American politics to their advantage as they only split the ticket of their end of the political spectrum and water down the closest party’s vote (think Roosevelt’s bull-moose party or Ralph nader’s Green Party candidacy).

Plus Canada couldn’t even become a state immediately. The US could conceivably annex the territory but the constitution is very clear on the process. The people of the territory have to ask for statehood. That’s why Puerto Rico is still a territory as the people there continue to vote the maintain the status quo rather than statehood or independence. Hawaii was annexed in 1898 and didn’t achieve statehood until 1959. I doubt millions of angry, freshly annexed, Canadians would be clamoring for immediate statehood.

All of this is moot, however, as Americans have no interest in invading Canada. Trump has riled Canada up, to what purpose I can’t say, perhaps to no purpose, but that’s all it will amount to long term. In four years, Trump will be out of office and Canada will still not be a US state.

And the damage done to international relations and business will be his legacy.

 

[Vashper]

Just exactly what I was thinking. It is why one builds a strong fence to keep the bear contained, and why anyone who has had any close experience with the bear wants to be on the outside of the fence.

Oh, there's no objection to the fence, you're welcome. But moving the fence is a bad idea, it raises objections.

 

[Scott CWO]

Oh, there's no objection to the fence, you're welcome. But moving the fence is a bad idea, it raises objections.

Yes because you don’t like the NATO fence because it stops delusional Russian expansion. No one wants to invade Russia.

 

[Vashper]

.... Must make the average regime apologist and propagandist squirm just a bit.

I have heard more than once that NATO's expansion to the east is not an aggressive step at all, and it does not pose any threat to Russia. And I even read it, and even here. And now it turns out that we have to tremble and cringe. That's the answer to why such events unfolded after the fascist coup in Ukraine.
And what is the purpose of these steps, which are quite expensive, by the way, besides provoking Russia? There is definitely no benefit for Sweden and Finland. Logically speaking, this looks like preparation for an annihilating war against Russia, it is not needed for anything else.

 

[mdwest]

There is definitely no benefit for Sweden and Finland. Logically speaking, this looks like preparation for an annihilating war against Russia, it is not needed for anything else.

Theres no benefit to Sweden and Finland joining NATO?

Sweden was already spending above the NATO standard requirement prior to joining NATO (about 2.4% with an intent to raise spending to as high as 3.5% of GDP). Finland has been spending about 2.4% as well since 2020 and had already made plans to increase to approximately 3% prior to joining NATO.

So, there's no additional cost requirement to those countries.... And there are several benefits (joint training opportunities, access to inteligence/information, protection/security assurances, etc, etc, etc.)..

Finland in particular shares an 820 mile border with Russia, but only has a national population of about 6M people... being a NATO member allows Finland access to additional troops, additional materials, etc to secure its border..

Most studies Ive seen/read speak to the disadvantage to the US in allowing additional countries to enter NATO (the US has historically bankrolled a huge part of the administrative costs associated with NATO as well as has historically spent far more on defense than any NATO member.. adding countries potentially just adds costs to the US tax payer...)... that said, the reports Ive read from CATO and other think tanks that studied the addition of Finland and Sweden to NATO showed that allowing 2 new countries to join that are already spending adequate GDP on defense would be a net positive for the US, and allow the US to retract from Europe a bit and potentially save the US money while still allowing Europe reasonable pre positioned defense from Russia and/or any other perceived or real threats..

What detriments do you see in Finland and Sweden joining NATO? The only detriment I see is for Russia. Everything I am reading, seeing, and understanding is its a net positive for Finland, Sweden, NATO, and the US.

 

[Vashper]

Yes because you don’t like the NATO fence because it stops delusional Russian expansion. No one wants to invade Russia.

Scott CWO, that's not convincing. I remember the events of the 90s well. Baker promised Gorbachev that there would be no advance to the east, and the Germans talked about this at the highest level (by the way, the Germans respected this agreement for quite a long time). Yeltsin even agreed in 1996 to withdraw Russian missiles from Ukraine, in exchange for neutral status (this is the main content of the Budapest Memorandum). As a result, in 1999, NATO invited the Baltic tigers to join NATO. Yeltsin's policy was compromised and he had to leave. And the biggest problem now is not even the war, but the fact that no one believes the promises of the West, and this applies not only to Russians. Do you remember the deployment of anti-missiles in Poland? Allegedly "against Iranian missiles"? The Afghan taxi driver was laughing, I was driving with him somewhere in Europe, they like to talk about politics.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Scott CWO, that's not convincing. I remember the events of the 90s well. Baker promised Gorbachev that there would be no advance to the east, and the Germans talked about this at the highest level (by the way, the Germans respected this agreement for quite a long time). Yeltsin even agreed in 1996 to withdraw Russian missiles from Ukraine, in exchange for neutral status (this is the main content of the Budapest Memorandum). As a result, in 1999, NATO invited the Baltic tigers to join NATO. Yeltsin's policy was compromised and he had to leave. And the biggest problem now is not even the war, but the fact that no one believes the promises of the West, and this applies not only to Russians. Do you remember the deployment of anti-missiles in Poland? Allegedly "against Iranian missiles"? The Afghan taxi driver was laughing, I was driving with him somewhere in Europe, they like to talk about politics.

Seem to remember the Russians signing a document promising to respect the boarders of Ukraine along about that time as well. In exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear deterrent.

 

[Vashper]

...

Finland in particular shares an 820 mile border with Russia, but only has a national population of about 6M people... being a NATO member allows Finland access to additional troops, additional materials, etc to secure its border..

...

You probably think that the border there is something like the perimeter from Harry Harrison's novel "The Indomitable Planet". The Finns don't guard this border at all, why? Forests and deep swamps. There are two or three checkpoints on the roads, that's all. The European Union demanded that the Russian border service protect this border from illegal migrants, because the Finns and Norwegians had no right not to let them in! It's absurd.

 

[spike.t]

One for the military people.....not good

Short version of his brother detailing what's happened

Full length with his brother who is a royal marine describing what has happened

 

[rookhawk]

I genuinely regret you and your family, or anyone's family, had such an experience - in Canada or anywhere else. I merely pointed out my own experiences over twenty-five years. Those are simple facts, not gaslighting (you really ought to look up that term since you like to use it a lot.) And yes, I am indeed "informed" about my trips to and from Canada. Apparently, those experiences upset you because you feel it contradicts your narrative in some way?

I am taking you at your word, you had one bad experience. I would be interested to know how many other transits lower than 35K feet there were. However, I will absolutely accept your experience as fact, and assume you are not deliberately gaslighting me or anyone else. Though, by your definition, your experience would seem to be a better "gaslighting by anecdote" example, whatever that is, than mine.

Since we're chatting about problems in Canada at the border I'd throw this one out: I've been to Canada dozens of times in my life/career for both business and personal travel. Only TWICE I can recall NOT being screwed with and run through a litany of enhanced questions out of the totality of travel experiences: Once landing in Moncton NB for a Salmon trip, and once crossing at Pigeon River for a bear hunt. ALL other times I was flying via air and was dressed in a suit and a tie....a guaranteed way to get a full colo-rectal from the Canucks at the airports. You see, Canadian government doesn't care about potential terrorists coming into their nation but they are REALLY concerned that you're going to make $1 on business over the course of a 2-3 day trip so they need to interrogate you every damned time just to make sure. I always flew in a day early for board meetings to allow for the full Canada experience at the airports.

On several of these trips I was in the employ of a household name major Canadian corporation but it made zero difference. Same scenarios every time from 1997-2022.

No thanks. I'm good. Pass.

 

[Scott CWO]

Scott CWO, that's not convincing. I remember the events of the 90s well. Baker promised Gorbachev that there would be no advance to the east, and the Germans talked about this at the highest level (by the way, the Germans respected this agreement for quite a long time). Yeltsin even agreed in 1996 to withdraw Russian missiles from Ukraine, in exchange for neutral status (this is the main content of the Budapest Memorandum). As a result, in 1999, NATO invited the Baltic tigers to join NATO. Yeltsin's policy was compromised and he had to leave. And the biggest problem now is not even the war, but the fact that no one believes the promises of the West, and this applies not only to Russians. Do you remember the deployment of anti-missiles in Poland? Allegedly "against Iranian missiles"? The Afghan taxi driver was laughing, I was driving with him somewhere in Europe, they like to talk about politics.

Other than Ukraine after Russia invaded them and Germany in WWII, has anyone invaded Russia from the countries you mentioned? Or any other country?

Russia is looking to expand back to USSR borders. That is the only reason you don’t like NATO expansion.

If your reasoning is to prevent invasion, you are being paranoid. Why don’t you throw away your “Evil Empire” conquests and become a friend of the West? Gorbachev almost got you there but then your government turned into an oligarchy and mafioso corrupted kleptocracy. How many billions does Putin need? He’s a pariah who cannot travel to the West to enjoy his wealth. What’s the point of all that money? Why do you and your countrymen allow this to happen?? You are afraid to say or do anything. Facts.

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

If your reasoning is to prevent invasion, you are being paranoid. Why don’t you throw away your “Evil Empire” conquests and become a friend of the West? Gorbachev almost got you there but then your government turned into an oligarchy and mafioso corrupted kleptocracy. How many billions does Putin need? He’s a pariah who cannot travel to the West to enjoy his wealth. What’s the point of all that money? Why do you and your countrymen allow this to happen?? You are afraid to say or do anything. Facts.

We should not blame our Russian friend. After all, many Russians die because for some reason they keep falling out of windows...

In all fairness, this is a public forum. If anyone in Russia posts anything against thier government, they too may fall out of a window. Unfortunately, this is not a joke...